Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Why is there such a fuss about secondary smoke?



January 04, 2010 – Comments (11)

turdburglar raises the issue of secondary smoke in bars. Why the discussion should go along the "ban or don't ban" lines, is beyond my understanding. There is a very simple and obvious solution. The law should require all bars to elect to be a either a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar, and to display that information on the door in capital letters. When you go to a bar, you will see a plaque on the door informing you of the bar's smoking policy, and decide if it's all right with you. And then, to each his own. Smokers and non-smokers alike will get a broad selection of bars where they can enjoy the atmosphere in both senses of the word.

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 04, 2010 at 2:39 PM, chk999 (99.96) wrote:

This is too logical to actually happen. It would let people make their own choices and the nanny state can't have that happening.

Report this comment
#2) On January 04, 2010 at 2:50 PM, russiangambit (28.86) wrote:

Actually it is because the bar owners don't want to give up profits.Bars where smoking is allowed have higher profits, or so I read, at least.

Report this comment
#3) On January 04, 2010 at 7:34 PM, rofgile (99.39) wrote:

Before the smoking ban, it was a defacto state of the bar choosing to be a smoking bar or not.

Guess what?  They were pretty much all smoking bars.  And if you were an employee you didn't get much say in whether the bar was smoking or not.

The smoking bans are great.  Hell, I think we should make it illegal to sell cigarrettes in the US.  (It could still be legal to buy them or grow them, ie like a decriminalized marijuana policy - just crack down on cigarrette dealers).


Smoking related diseases are the leading preventative diseases in the US.  We should do everything possible to drive smoking out of the mainstream.  (This is all spoken as an ex-smoker, who got hooked and is quite happy now to be free of smoking).   I have no problem with people choosing to smoke, but I don't think we should institutionalize profit making from people smoking (ie large tobacco corps) - as smoking just plain is deadly.

Report this comment
#4) On January 04, 2010 at 7:35 PM, rofgile (99.39) wrote:


in the previous post.


Report this comment
#5) On January 04, 2010 at 7:36 PM, ChrisGraley (28.68) wrote:

So you figure out the profit difference and tax the bars that allow smoking the difference in profits. Use the taxes to offset smoking related health care problems.

That's right! I actually suggested to tax somebody! You won't hear it often, but in this case it makes more sense than the smoking police and a nanny state.

Report this comment
#6) On January 04, 2010 at 7:55 PM, neskolf (29.33) wrote:

The irony, of course, is that drunk drivers and violence are far more hazardous than second hand smoke in the context of bar or club related dangers. 

I'm reformed smoker, as well.  But I also see the laughable hypocrisy in crusading against a legal activity in a private establishment.  Making smoking cigarettes illegal would put an end to such nonsense; but we can't lose out on all of those juicy tax revenues, can we?    

Report this comment
#7) On January 05, 2010 at 12:24 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (85.98) wrote:

My solution was to ban smoking in any establishment that has a food license. That way families can go to their local hooters and not be subjected to smoke.

The average Joe six-pack could stop at the corner dive and relax with a cig and a beer after a 12 hour shift.

Msftgev (who quit smoking many times, but now has the urge to light up)


Report this comment
#8) On January 05, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Rehydrogenated (33.33) wrote:

Actually the new taxes made everyone in my family reevaluate their smoking habits. At least 5 people in my family are quitting smoking right now.

Naturally i'm going insane.

Report this comment
#9) On January 05, 2010 at 11:49 AM, turdburglar (42.32) wrote:

It's funny to hear all you do-gooders coming up with ideas for how to do good.

Ban smoking anywhere there's food so families can go there.  Like they can't just go somewhere else where there isn't smoking.  I hate to think of a world where you couldn't take the family to Hooters without fearing that your kids might smell some smoke.

Tax places and pay for smoking related health problem.  Who cares about that?  Just say "too bad" and if they cough up a lung on the street, fine them for littering of biohazardous waste.

Why all this need to do good by making more laws?  Why not just mind your own business and I'll mind mine?  If you don't like the smoke, get out of the bar.


Report this comment
#10) On January 05, 2010 at 1:09 PM, dudemonkey (50.96) wrote:

> Bars where smoking is allowed have higher profits, or so I read, at least.

Except in the places where smoking has been banned.  I know in NYC bars have made higher profits AFTER smoking was banned than they did before.

Report this comment
#11) On January 05, 2010 at 10:06 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (85.98) wrote:


Actually you and I are on the same page, I find the Governments intrusion on my rights disgusting. Just as with prohabition, and the war on drugs. Cigarette smoking will just go underground as taxes and repressive laws increase.

I merely was offerring a compromise to squelch the usual arguments-

Workers don't get to pick if they work in a non-smoking establishment. With my plan they would.

Why should people who do not wish to be in a smokey environment be forced to stay home. Again see my plan.

If you serve food you need a different license then a liquor license so this would not be a new law, just a change in the code.

The Joe six-pack in my story is me, the corner dive is actually on my corner. I have observed as the entire bar steps outside every 20 minutes to have a smoke. You don't think this hurts the owners bottom line, you can't bring your drink with you.

Msftgev- (who just wrote his first political rant, and was very offended to be called a do-gooder : )

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners